Particulate detectors, generally referred to as smoke detectors, sense particulate matter in an environment and enter an alarm state when particulates exceed a predetermined threshold. The purpose for such detectors is typically to detect smoke and provide an early warning of conditions indicative of a fire. However, such detectors typically do not discriminate between smoke and other types of particulates which may be present in an environment, such as dust, steam, or paint particles. During construction and certain maintenance projects, project environments often experience sufficient quantities of non-smoke particulates to exceed the thresholds of such particulate detectors, causing numerous annoying false alarms. Moreover, even ignoring the annoying aspects of false alarms, the levels of certain particulates, such as paint or dust, may reach such proportions that sensing chambers become coated, clogged, or otherwise contaminated and thresholds become altered, thereby reducing future effectiveness of such particulate detectors. Consequently, it is a common practice in the industry to take steps to avoid these problems.
One common technique for addressing such problems is the de-energizing of affected particulate detectors during a maintenance or construction project so that such particulate detectors cannot enter their alarm state. However, this conventional technique suffers undesirable drawbacks because it often requires the time and expense of having skilled personnel insure proper reconnection of disabled particulate detectors. Moreover, if a particulate detector is not removed from the project vicinity, the unit may still become contaminated by excessive dust or paint particles.
Another technique simply disables an entire alarm system. However, particulate detectors may still become contaminated if not removed or otherwise protected. In addition, this technique unnecessarily worsens safety hazards by disabling useful detection devices in environments remote from the project vicinity.
Yet another known technique covers particulate detectors in a project area using a wide variety of covering materials with an aim toward preventing such particulate detectors from sensing the environment. The known covering techniques have not proven satisfactory. For example, such materials are often of a make-shift nature, which does not lend itself to effectively and reliably covering a particulate detector. Moreover, such materials are often opaque so that workers cannot observe lights on specific particulate detectors to determine if such particulate detectors are in their alarm state. Still further, the known covering techniques often utilize a tape, such as conventional duct tape, to secure a covering to a particulate detector. Alternatively, in some situations, tape alone has been used to substantially enclose a particulate detector. Such taping is most undesirable because it often causes damage to a particulate detector and a particulate detector's base as a consequence of removing the tape.
Still other problems confront someone who might wish to utilize any of the above-mentioned techniques. For example, the above-mentioned techniques generally provide no indication of the fact that a particulate detector may be disabled. Consequently, those performing construction or maintenance projects can easily forget to enable such disabled particulate detectors, causing a serious life-safety hazard to tenants of a building. This problem is exaggerated when the project vicinity, including particulate detectors or any coverings attached thereto, is painted because walls, particulate detectors and coverings thereon become a single homogeneous color.
Similarly, such techniques often require time consuming and painstaking procedures to put a disabled particulate detector back into service. Thus, personnel performing long-term construction or maintenance projects are encouraged to simply leave such particulate detectors continuously disabled throughout the duration of a project. Such action poses serious life-safety hazards to occupants of a building during nights, holidays, weekends, and other periods when the project vicinity is unoccupied. Moreover, it is noted that such hazards are greater than normal because fires are more likely to occur at a construction site than at other building locations.
Accordingly, a need exists for a device and method that addresses the above-mentioned problems without suffering the substantial drawbacks associated with conventional techniques.